BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

54 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 2Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai169Delhi95Mumbai90Kolkata54Raipur45Jaipur42Bangalore38Pune36Hyderabad29Lucknow24Ahmedabad23Nagpur15Surat14Cochin13Guwahati6Indore6SC5Amritsar5Rajkot5Chandigarh4Varanasi4Karnataka3Calcutta2Visakhapatnam1Allahabad1Cuttack1Himachal Pradesh1Telangana1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 14873Section 14749Section 143(3)43Section 26341Addition to Income33Condonation of Delay24Section 13218Section 132(1)16Section 14A

VINOD AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1895/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

Showing 1–20 of 54 · Page 1 of 3

16
Section 15314
Exemption14
Limitation/Time-bar11

PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1898/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

SHYAM SUNDAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, CENTRAL - 2, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1896/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

RAM NARESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals are allowed

ITA 1897/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 1895/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Vinod Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acrpa 8096 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1896/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shyam Sundar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 7814 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1897/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Ram Naresh Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acypa 1903 G] (Respondent) (Appellant) I.T.A No. 1898/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal -Vs.- Pr.C.I.T.Central, Kolkata-2, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Actpa 2421 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Md. Usman, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. Shri Vinod Agarwal & Ors. A.Yr.2013-14 Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 263Section 263o

delay in filing these appeals deserve to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned. 8. The Assessees in all these four appeals are individuals. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the revenue under the provision of section 132 of the Act on 10.05.2012 against the assessees and various business concerns of Srijan Group at various

DCIT, CIRCLE - 48, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SANJAY JAISWAL, HOWRAH

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is allowed , appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1649/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Gopal Ram Sharma, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Debasish Lahiri, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153(3)Section 254

condone the delay of 20 days in preferring cross objections before us and the same is admitted herein for adjudication. 2.1. The ground raised by the assesee in his cross objection is as below:- That the CIT(Appeals) on the facts and in the circumstances of the case should have held that the assessment is barred by limitation of time

MUKUND RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1317/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. S. Biswas, JCIT
Section 10Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 263

2A) of the Act. Against this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CITA who dismissed the appeal on the ground that assessee had not preferred any appeal against the section 263 order of the ld CIT before the tribunal and hence he is not inclined to interfere with the findings

NANDILAL RUNGTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC-V, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1319/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. S. Biswas, JCIT
Section 10Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 263

2A) of the Act. Against this order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CITA who dismissed the appeal on the ground that assessee had not preferred any appeal against the section 263 order of the ld CIT before the tribunal and hence he is not inclined to interfere with the findings

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6(1), , KOLKATA vs. CFL CAPITAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2390/KOL/2018[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2390/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 1995-96)

For Appellant: Shri Radhey Shyam, CITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153Section 153(3)(ii)Section 153ASection 158BSection 250Section 250(1)Section 254

condone the delay and admit the appeal of revenue for hearing. 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue reads as follows: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred by holding that this case falls under purview of Section 153(2A

ZULU MERCHANDISE (P)LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT 2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 380/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2Section 249Section 253Section 263Section 3Section 5

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit. 8. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 97,245/-. The return of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 18.06.2013. Thereafter, case of the assessee was reopened

VIJAY KUMAR AGARWAL (HUF),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD 28(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 44/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 115BSection 142Section 142(1)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

delay is hereby condoned. 3. Brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee derives income from sale of shares and commodities and income from other sources. The assessee filed his return. The case was selected for scrutiny, accordingly, notices u/s 143(2) and u/s 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee. During the assessment

SHREE VARDHAN METALIKS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 114/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Shree Vardhan Metaliks Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-3(1), 8/53/1, Fern Road, 1St Vs. Kolkata. Floor, Gariahat, Near Goal Park, Kolkata-700029 (Pan: Aaics3466M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : N O N E Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Kolkata Vide Appeal No. 44/Cit(A)-1/C-3(1)/2015-16 Dated 31.08.2018 For A.Y. 2012-13 Passed Against The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By Dcit, Circle-3(1),Kolkata Dated 12.03.2015. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. Cit Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit it for adjudication. 4. We note that the sole ground of appeal of the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deciding the appeal ex parte without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard and hence, Ld. CIT(A)’s order is liable to be set aside

A.C.I.T CIR - 3,ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. RITEN BASAK, BURDWAN

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1745/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2008-09

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

condone the delay and admit the Revenue’s appeal for hearing. 3. First issue raised by Revenue in this appeal is that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by Assessing Officer for Rs.1,35,417/- u/s 14A on account of share of profit earned from the partnership firm u/s 10(2A) of the Act. 4. The facts

M/S THE PHILANTHROPIC SOCIETY OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH,KOLKATA vs. DDIT (EXEMPTIONS)-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Oct 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Year:2011-12

Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

condone the assessee's delay in exercising the option. ITA No.763/Kol/2016 A.Y.2011-12 M/s The Philanthropic Society of the Orthodox Church vs. DDIT(Ex)-I, Kol. Page 4 3. For that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble CIT was wholly wrong and unjustified in passing the order u/s 263 without considering and appreciating

JATIN KHARA,KOLKATA vs. ITO WARD-30(1)/ KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2299/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 250

section 10(2A) share of profit from partnership firm is exempt from income tax in the hands of the Partner, but at the time of processing my return, this profit was treated (from partnership firm) as a business profit and imposed the tax on the above profit without any reason. 3. Further Sir, delay filing of appeal

M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 2295/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Dhawan Singh & Shri David Z
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 8OSection 92B

condone the delay for adjudication and dismiss these two appeals as not pressed. Accordingly, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. 4. 5. Now, we take up the two appeals by the Revenue in ITA Nos. 917 & 918/Kol/2017 for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. Both the parties agree that in both the appeals grounds raised are common

M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 2294/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Dhawan Singh & Shri David Z
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 8OSection 92B

condone the delay for adjudication and dismiss these two appeals as not pressed. Accordingly, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. 4. 5. Now, we take up the two appeals by the Revenue in ITA Nos. 917 & 918/Kol/2017 for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. Both the parties agree that in both the appeals grounds raised are common

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 917/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Dhawan Singh & Shri David Z
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 8OSection 92B

condone the delay for adjudication and dismiss these two appeals as not pressed. Accordingly, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. 4. 5. Now, we take up the two appeals by the Revenue in ITA Nos. 917 & 918/Kol/2017 for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. Both the parties agree that in both the appeals grounds raised are common

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed and appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 918/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.917 & 918/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax Vs. 129, Park Street Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Dhawan Singh & Shri David Z
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 8OSection 92B

condone the delay for adjudication and dismiss these two appeals as not pressed. Accordingly, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. 4. 5. Now, we take up the two appeals by the Revenue in ITA Nos. 917 & 918/Kol/2017 for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. Both the parties agree that in both the appeals grounds raised are common

DCIT, CIRCLE - 6,, KOLKATA vs. LOKNATH SARAF SECURITIES LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, to sum up ITA No

ITA 852/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 43(5)Section 73

2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), where in respect of any assessment year, the net result of the computation under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" is a loss and the assessee has income assessable under the head "Salaries", the assessee shall not be entitled to have such loss

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.,, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1741/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Berger Paints India Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-10(1) Vs. 129, Park Street Kolkata Kolkata-17 (Pan: Aabcb0976E) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Berger Paints India Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 129, Park Street Income-Tax, Circle-10(1) Kolkata-17 Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Revenue : Shri Amol Kamat, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, Kolkata Vide Appeal No. 14/Cit(A)-22/14-15/16-17/Kol Dated 31.02.2018 Against The Order Of Dcit, Circle-10(1), Kolkata Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Act), Dated 31.12.2016 For Ay 2014-15. 2. Before Us, Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, Advocate Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Amol Kamat, Cit, Dr Represented The Revenue. Ld. Counsel For The Ita No. 2299/Kol/2019 By Assessee Berger Paints India Ltd. Ays 2014-15 Assessee Has Placed On Record, A Brief Note On The Submissions Made Along With Paper Books & Chart Substantiate The Claims Made By The Assessee In The Assessment Year Under Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate and Shri Pratyush Jhunjhunwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80Section 80ISection 8O

condone the delay for adjudication and dismiss this appeal of assessee as not pressed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 4. 5. Now, we take up the appeal by the Revenue in ITA No.1741/Kol/2018. 6. Revenue has challenged the merits of the addition which have been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). Grounds taken by the revenue